Emerging Leader Characteristics: How to Identify Your Future Leaders
How to identify emerging leaders by looking beyond performance. Covers learning agility, observable behaviours that indicate potential, trust-building behaviours, and warning signs of derailment risk.
Most organisations promote based on performance. Someone exceeds their targets, delivers consistently, and demonstrates expertise. So they get moved into management.
The problem: high performance and high potential are not the same thing.
Research consistently shows that the skills making someone excellent at their current job are different from the skills that will make them effective as a leader. Technical expertise, individual productivity, and deep domain knowledge are valuable. But they don't predict whether someone can build a team, develop others, navigate organisational politics, or lead through ambiguity.
This article covers how to identify emerging leaders by looking beyond performance, what observable behaviours indicate leadership potential, and the warning signs that someone may struggle in a leadership role.
High Performer vs High Potential: The Dangerous Assumption
Organisations routinely confuse performance and potential. They assume that a high performer automatically has growth potential. This is one of the most expensive mistakes in talent management.
The distinction matters:
Performance is retrospective.
It measures what someone has done. Results achieved, targets met, quality delivered.
Potential is prospective.
It estimates what someone could do. Capacity for growth, ability to handle complexity, readiness for roles that don't yet exist.
Someone can be exceptional at their current job and entirely wrong for leadership. The best salesperson may lack the patience to develop others. The strongest engineer may struggle to delegate. The most knowledgeable analyst may be unable to influence without data.
When organisations promote based on performance alone, they often lose a great individual contributor and gain a struggling manager. The cost compounds: the new manager underperforms, their team suffers, good people leave, and the organisation loses the contribution that person was making before promotion.
What Actually Predicts Leadership Potential
Research from the Center for Creative Leadership points to learning agility as one of the strongest predictors of leadership success. Learning agility is not intelligence. It's a mindset and collection of practices that allow leaders to continually develop, grow, and use new strategies for increasingly complex problems.
Source: Center for Creative Leadership
CCL research demonstrates that learning agility provides predictive validity beyond IQ and personality. This makes it one of the most reliable indicators of future leadership success.
The good news: learning agility can be observed in day-to-day behaviour. You don't need formal assessments to spot it.
The Five Dimensions of Learning Agility
The Center for Creative Leadership, working with Columbia University, identified five behavioural dimensions of learning agility. Four enable it. One impedes it.
1. Innovating
What the research says
Innovating means questioning the status quo and challenging long-held assumptions to discover new ways of doing things. It's distinct from pure creativity. It specifically involves challenging norms and seeking new experiences that provide growth opportunities.
What leaders experience
In our data, leaders who demonstrate innovating don't just have ideas. They act on them. They propose alternatives when facing problems, ask "why" and "what if" questions, and experiment with new methods rather than defaulting to proven approaches.
Think about their answers and give details to reasonably answer the question presented to them.
— Leader reflecting on team problem-solving
The leaders who score highest on innovating tend to seek exposure to unfamiliar projects. They volunteer for cross-functional work. They treat complexity as interesting rather than threatening.
Where leaders get stuck
Many emerging leaders have been rewarded for doing things the "right way." They've built expertise by mastering established processes. Innovating requires them to question the very approaches that made them successful. This feels risky. It is risky. But without it, they plateau.
2. Performing Under Pressure
What the research says
Performing means remaining present and engaged while handling stress brought on by ambiguity. Adapting quickly in order to deliver results.
CCL research found that learning from experience occurs most often when overcoming unfamiliar challenges. But only those who can remain present and engaged actually learn from such experiences. Others just survive them.
What leaders experience
I actually find I work really well under pressure — while I often feel overwhelmed I just knuckle down and get the job done.
— Leader in our program
This is common. Many emerging leaders perform well under pressure. But performing under pressure is not the same as learning under pressure. The distinction matters for potential.
In our data, leaders who demonstrate this dimension maintain composure, handle ambiguous situations without becoming paralysed, and adapt on the fly when circumstances change. They pick up new skills faster than peers.
Where leaders get stuck
Some leaders cope with pressure by narrowing focus. They get the immediate job done but miss the bigger picture. They survive the challenge without extracting lessons from it. This looks like performance, but it's not learning agility. It's survival mode.
3. Reflecting
What the research says
Reflecting means spending focused energy processing information to better understand your own assumptions and behaviour. Generating deeper insight.
Simply having new experiences does not guarantee learning. Reflection transforms experience into learning.
CCL research found that peers and direct reports rate highly reflective individuals as more effective on competencies including responding to complexity, implementing change, managing teams, and managing interpersonal relationships.
What leaders experience
Ask for feedback to see if the changes implemented are helping.
— Leader on their development approach
The leaders who demonstrate reflection seek feedback actively and frequently. They take time to understand why things happened, not just what happened. They conduct post-mortems on successes and failures. They adjust behaviour based on lessons learned.
Where leaders get stuck
Reflection requires slowing down. In our data, leaders consistently report time pressure as a barrier. They move from task to task without pausing to analyse. They know they should reflect, but there's always something more urgent.
Need to improve on time management skills.
— Leader on their development area
The irony: the leaders who feel they don't have time to reflect are often the ones who need it most.
4. Risking
What the research says
Risking means venturing into unknown territory and putting yourself out there to try new things. Volunteering for jobs and roles where success is not guaranteed.
CCL research shows that risk-taking is consistently reported as the hardest facet to develop within organisations. Organisational cultures often inadvertently punish the very behaviour that develops future leaders.
What leaders experience
Grab the opportunity when it comes and then prepare myself.
— Leader on approaching challenges
In our data, leaders who demonstrate risking volunteer for difficult or ambiguous projects. They pursue developmental opportunities even when success isn't certain. They take on challenges others avoid.
Where leaders get stuck
Most organisations say they value innovation and initiative. But when someone takes a risk and it doesn't work out, what happens? If the consequence is blame or career damage, people learn that playing it safe is the real expectation.
Leaders who want to develop risking in their potential successors need to look at what actually gets rewarded. Not what the values statement says. What actually happens when someone fails.
5. Defending (The Derailer)
What the research says
Defending means remaining closed or defensive when challenged or given critical feedback. Making excuses rather than processing feedback openly.
Bosses rate defensive individuals as less effective on multiple competencies including self-awareness, communication, ability to respond to complexity, ability to adapt, and ability to meet business objectives.
What leaders experience
Each person involved thought their opinion or idea was the best one. There was no willingness to listen or compromise.
— Leader reflecting on a team conflict
In our data, defensiveness shows up in subtle ways. Leaders who say "yes, but..." when receiving feedback. Leaders who blame external factors rather than examining their role. Leaders who avoid situations where weaknesses might be exposed.
Where leaders get stuck
Defensiveness often comes from a good place. People want to demonstrate competence. They want to show they deserve their role. But the behaviour that protects ego prevents growth.
The leaders who overcome defensiveness tend to reframe feedback as information rather than judgement. They separate their identity from their performance. This is hard. It requires psychological safety, which is why culture matters so much.
Beyond Learning Agility: Trust-Building Behaviours
Learning agility is a strong predictor, but it's not the only signal. DDI research on effective leadership identifies four behaviours that build trust. These are observable in daily interactions.
1. Listen and respond with genuine empathy
It felt good to give them the opportunity to express themselves. Yes, I did get a clear picture of their points of view. Just by really listening to someone, we can pick up a lot of information and emotions.
— Leader practising active listening
2. Ask for help and encourage involvement
Asking questions allows you to enhance your listening skills and you can instantly feel the rapport and the relationship building.
— Leader reflecting on coaching conversations
3. Share thoughts, feelings, and rationale
Being transparent, explaining the "why" behind decisions.
— Leader on building trust
4. Provide support without removing responsibility
Coaches rather than rescues. Available as a resource without taking over.
— Behaviour from our curriculum
Source: DDI Global Leadership Forecast
These multipliers are remarkable. And the behaviours are observable without formal assessment.
Warning Signs: What to Watch Out For
Identifying potential is half the equation. The other half is identifying derailment risk.
CCL research spanning four decades found that certain patterns consistently predict leadership failure. Understanding these patterns helps organisations avoid promoting people who will struggle.
The Four Derailment Themes
1. Problems with Interpersonal Relationships
What the research says
This is the most common cause of derailment across all CCL studies. In European samples, mentioned in 64% of derailment cases. In North American samples, 50%.
Source: Center for Creative Leadership
What leaders experience
A fellow worker felt as if they'd been targeted by management.
— Leader reflecting on team conflict
In our data, relationship problems often trace back to communication failures. Leaders who don't listen. Leaders who dismiss concerns. Leaders who take credit and assign blame.
Warning signs to watch for:
- Team members request transfers or quit
- Described as abrasive, intimidating, or arrogant
- Takes credit disproportionately, blames others
- Network remains narrow
2. Inability to Develop or Adapt
Mentioned in 60% of North American and 62% of European derailment cases.
CCL identifies a consistent pattern: weaknesses tolerated early in a career eventually become serious as individuals advance. Supervisors downplay or overlook potential derailers by focusing on strengths.
Warning signs to watch for:
- Described as stubborn, rigid, or set in their ways
- Clings to methods that worked in previous roles
- Receives coaching but doesn't change behaviour
- Struggles during organisational transitions
3. Inability to Build and Lead a Team
Mentioned in 40% of North American and 24% of European derailment cases.
As leaders advance, they must achieve results through others rather than through personal execution. Managers who cannot make this shift derail as scope increases beyond what one person can execute.
Warning signs to watch for:
- Micromanages or fails to delegate
- High-potential subordinates leave for opportunities elsewhere
- Team remains dependent on leader for all decisions
- Tolerates underperformance to avoid conflict
4. Failure to Meet Business Objectives
Mentioned in 30% of North American and 16% of European derailment cases.
What constitutes "performance" shifts from individual execution to strategic impact. Leaders unable to expand their definition of success struggle as scope broadens.
Warning signs to watch for:
- Consistently misses commitments or targets
- Focuses on tactics without strategic context
- Becomes overwhelmed as complexity increases
The High-Potential Derailment Paradox
Research identifies a concerning pattern: the most common profile for high-potential leaders who derail is someone who is smart, driven, and accustomed to pushing through obstacles.
The same hard-driving, risk-taking style that gets leaders noticed can cause problems with colleagues. Skills making someone a great individual contributor may be counterproductive as a leader.
Assessment Approaches That Work
What to Include
360-degree feedback: DDI research found that 90% of Fortune 500 companies use 360-degree feedback as part of leadership development. The multi-rater perspective reduces individual manager bias.
Behavioural observation: Train managers to notice learning agility in action. When facing new challenges, does this person lean in or pull back? When receiving feedback, do they explore or defend?
Structured calibration meetings: Multiple leaders discuss placements to reduce individual manager bias and ensure consistency.
What to Avoid
Over-reliance on the 9-box grid: Research found that when companies tried to predict whether an employee would advance two levels within five years, they were accurate only 52% of the time. Barely better than a coin flip.
Source: Research on 9-box grid limitations
The 9-box grid also shows systematic bias. A 2022 study found that women receive substantially lower potential ratings than men, despite receiving higher job performance ratings.
Use the 9-box as a conversation starter, not a decision driver.
Creating an Identification System
Identifying emerging leaders should be ongoing, not annual. It should involve multiple data sources, not single manager opinions. And it should focus on development, not just categorisation.
Start with Observable Behaviours
Train managers to notice learning agility in action:
- When facing new challenges, does this person lean in or pull back?
- When receiving feedback, do they thank and explore, or defend and excuse?
- When working with others, do they build relationships across levels?
- When projects go wrong, do they analyse root causes or blame externals?
- When context changes, do they adapt their approach or cling to old methods?
Build Development into Identification
DDI research shows that lower-level and emerging leaders experience the greatest growth from development because they have more room to improve. Invest early. Provide leadership development before individuals step into formal leadership roles.
Watch for Derailment Risks Early
Don't wait until someone is struggling. The patterns that predict derailment are visible earlier. Relationship problems, resistance to feedback, inability to delegate, and tactical focus all show up before promotion.
Intervene early. Provide coaching. Set clear expectations. And recognise that not everyone with high performance has high potential for leadership.
Continue Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
Start before the first management role. The patterns that predict leadership success are visible in individual contributors. Look for learning agility, relationship building, and willingness to take on ambiguous challenges. Early identification allows for development before bad habits form.
Continuously, not annually. People develop. Circumstances change. Someone who showed low potential two years ago may have grown significantly. Build assessment into ongoing talent conversations, not just annual reviews.
Yes. Learning agility is not a fixed trait. The behaviours that indicate potential can be developed through deliberate practice, feedback, and experience. DDI research found that after development programs, 75% of leaders consistently display effective leadership behaviours compared to 55% before. The key is sustained development over time, not one-off training events.